When the Exclusive Becomes Elusive

The Sun Herald

The beginning of this article reads as follows:

EXCLUSIVE: THE POTENTIAL SAVIOUR

(http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/parramatta-waiting-in-the-wings-for-thurston-20101016-16o8d.html)

Apparently, Parramatta Rugby League Club are keeping their eye on the goings on in Townsville in an attempt to secure Jonathan Thurston for next season. 

Whoa, what a scoop.

Rugby League club tries to secure a talented player who may be able to weasel his way out of his contract.

If we are honest with ourselves, what club wouldn't be 'watching' in an attempt to snare a player of Thurston's caliber.  

So, what makes an exclusive, exclusive? And is the exclusive now something that is too elusive to promote what with the instantaneous ability to share news on the internet?

Perhaps the exclusive is dead . . . but in the case of this article, it's just telling us what we would have already guessed. 

Getting My Fix

(http://www.whitmangowdridge.co.uk/ProductsandServices/GeneralInsurance/tabid/157/Default.aspx)

Ah, the relief. That's a straight up dose of some good Journalism. Nothing gives you a high like good Journalism!

This is both a good story and a bad story. Good because it's well written and well researched (snaps to Reily and McClymont) but bad because it deals with a very controversial issue in the professional sporting industry.

You can read it here:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/bulldogs-players-quizzed-over-alleged-betting-fix-20101006-16805.html

It's a good story with multiple sources however there are far too many unnamed sources for it to be truly credible in normal circumstances however there are legal issues due to the criminal nature of the story.

The Story draws not only on interviews and characters but one source is a biography and other details have clearly come from some sort of a police report/media release. The use of such sources is good, general work.

it's a good informative and well researched piece. It's nice to know the future of good Journalism is still alive.

Dear Phil Gould,

smh.com.au

I hate to have to be the one to inform you of this, but Journalism is not all about YOU! Not even your silly and inconsequential opinion articles!

Also, thank you for writing an article full of stuff that we already know!

Well Done, do you want a medal?

Just because you've been a part of Rugby League all your life, does not give you the skill set to become a Sports Journalist and it's no wonder that the rest of the Channel Nine commentary team make fun of you!

I mean, just look at this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-match-preview/the-good-old-days-are-back-20101002-161y8.html

Your ideas are stupid and outdated. it’s a wonder that the Sydney Morning Herald gives you space to write on their paper in the first place. I can only guess that it's because they enjoy having someone on their staff that they can ridicule and slander without having to feel bad.

Your idea to have two competitions – one for Sydney and another for regional teams – is down right discriminatory and goes against all that Australia stands for.

You are ridiculous!

Love Emma